[Editor's Note: As noted in the introduction to this debate, Mr. McDonald insisted that his manuscripts be posted exactly as he had submitted them. Consequently, none of his frequent mistakes in grammar, syntax, spelling, punctuation, etc. have been corrected. All places where [sic] appears in the text below are mistakes that were in his original manuscript]
In 2 Corinthians chapter 10 the apostle Paul spoke to the very kind of debating tactics you have just witnessed from Mr. Till:
"Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you: But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringeth into captivity every thought to the disobedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's even so are we Christ's. For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed. That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present."
The point is made that some were attacking Paul's person. They say that his letters are weighty and powerful--in other words, he is good at writing strong letters--but his bodily presence is weak and his speech incontemptible [sic]--or he does not have the courage to stand before us and speak to our faces. It is easy, they thought, for him to write letters from a safe distance, but he will not come here and say these things to our faces. Why were they making such a charge? Well, quite obviously because they could not answer the arguments that he had made in his letter, and they felt that they had to have someway [sic] to discredit him. To this Paul says: [sic] "Though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds." [sic] (vs. 3,4) [sic] He is merely telling the church in Corinth that it is wrong to cut down a man's character because you cannot overcome his argument.
Today, we have a name for it: argumentum ad hominem or the argument directed towards the man. I know that Farrell is familiar with the term because he constantly accused Bill Jackson of committing this fallacy in their debate even though Bill never used language such as Farrell used in his third defense. Now I think that it is interesting to note that Farrell will often accuse someone of doing something, condemn them for that thing, then turn right around and commit the very act he condemned in others. He is like the Pharisees in that they could condemn someone for doing a thing, then turn right around and do that very thing themselves, as if it was alright [sic]. Of course, Farrell and the Pharisees would have had much in common, for they both set double standards, one for them and one for everyone else.
In his last article Farrell came out with statements such as this:
The claim is completely false, and until now I have let it pass in order to concentrate on matters more important than this pathetic little vanity, which leads him to perceive himself as a great debater.... [sic] (p.1) [sic]
So now I ask Mr. McDonald if he is capable of working simple math.... [sic] (p.3) [sic]
He evidently sees himself as some kind of linguistic expert when in reality he makes errors in diction all of the time in this debate and the paper he publishes.... [sic] (p.5) [sic]
His good-men/bad-men argument is a stupid one. It was stupid when Thomas B. Warren used it, and it is still stupid.... [sic] (p.10) [sic]
Quite frankly, much of what he says isn't worth responding to.... [sic] (p.14) [sic]
Well, it was Thomas B. Warren's style of debating, and McDonald sees himself as a [sic] sort of a new Thomas B. Warren.... If he can ask his questions without all this I-see-myself-as-a-great-debater-in-the-Thomas Warren-tradition, he will not have to worry about whether I will answer his questions, because I will. Why should I worry about answering questions posed by an intellectual midget of McDonald's caliber? [sic] (pp.28,29) [sic]
McDonald like [sic] legalism until it backfires on him as it has several times in this debate. He is an absolute joke. [sic] (p.29) [sic]
I believe that the only reason that he uses statements like the above is because he cannot answer my arguments, so he must now resort to attacking my person. That way he can fill his pages with something and make everyone think that he is really defending his position. Well that kind of debating will not work, and critical readers will immediately see how miserably he has failed throughout this discussion.
[Editor's Note: This link will show that when McDonald made personal attacks on Till, apparently realizing what he had done, he excused them on the grounds that they were not ad hominem attacks but just appropriate comments on Till's "inadequate attitude towards the Bible or the church."]
Let us go through his article, point-by-point (just like we have in the past) and see if his arguments hold water.
He says that I see myself as some great debater. He is wrong! I do not see myself as any such thing. I do meet him with everything God has given me, that is just the way that I was raised to debate. That is the way my dad debated, and I learned from him. He says this to try and [sic] turn the reader's head from the real issue. He is supposed to be proving that the Bible is errant. Yet he cannot do that because if I give a possible answer to his arguments, his arguments are impeached, by his own admission, until such a time as he completely removes the counterargument. To date he has not done this to any of the answers I have given. He is even at the point that he is finished with the Ahaziah's age argument. Why? Quite obviously because he cannot answer the response that I have given. [Editor's Note: Till's article "Speaking Where the Bible Does Not Speak" contains a detailed reply to every point that McDonald has used in support of his solution to the discrepancy in Ahaziah's age.] By the way, you remember Farrell stating in his first defense:
"I urge Mr. McDonald to deal directly with the issues that I have raised in my first defense and not try to pussyfoot around them, because my strategy is going to be the same as it was in my debate with Mr. Jackson. I will keep dumping these same contradictions into his lap until he either proves conclusively that they are not contradictions or until he admits that he knows of no way to explain them." [sic] (Underline belongs to me, jdm) (Till's First Defense, last paragraph, p.29)? [sic]
Ahaziah's age was one of those things he raised in his first defense, and I do not know of a single place where I have admitted that this cannot be explained. Now Farrell is wanting to drop the subject of Ahaziah's age. I guess that means that I have conclusively proven (according to him) that this is not a contradiction, even in his eyes. Tell us, Mr. Till, did I prove conclusively that Ahaziah's age was not a contradiction? If not, why are you so anxious to drop the subject?
[Editor's Note: As the editorial insertion above states, Till's article "Speaking Where the Bible Does Not Speak" contains a detailed reply to every point that McDonald has used in support of his solution to the discrepancy in Ahaziah's age. Confronting no word limitation that required brevity, Till replied in intricate detail even to minor points in McDonald's alleged solution to this discrepancy. Nothing that McDonald has said in support of his how-it-could-have-been solution has been left unanswered.]
He produces 14 places from my last rebuttal where he says I failed to answer his arguments. Let me show him exactly where the answers are:
[Editor's Note: In the section below, links have been inserted into each of McDonald's claims of having answered the points in Till's list, so that readers can see, with just a few clicks of their mouse buttons, that what McDonald called answers are, as Till said, either evasions or passing mentions, which in most cases were just unsupported denials or dismissals of Till's arguments. The first link, for example, will show that McDonald, as even he admitted below, spent his time here denying that the Qur'an claims to be inspired rather than explaining why he does not accept the Qur'anic claim that Islam is "the true religion with Allah.]
[Editor's Note: The "law of excluded middle" is a controversial theory in traditional or classical logic. An editorial insertion here explains problems that modern logicians see in the classical claim that every precisely stated proposition is either true or false. Even if the principle of the excluded middle is accepted, McDonald's claim that all people are either good or bad would be logically flawed, because good and bad are abstract terms that have no "precise" meanings.]
[Editor's Note: In neither of these places cited did McDonald quote or even cite a biblical passage that says that the kings of Judah reigned where they worshiped.]
[Editor's Note: Till acknowledged throughout the debate that no book could have been written by an entity (person) unless that entity (person) had existed, but he repeatedly pointed out that one would not have to prove that an entity (person) did not exist in order to prove that said entity (person) did not write a specific document. He used Howard Hughes and the bogus will attributed to Hughes as an example of how a claim of authenticity can be disproven without having to prove that the person who allegedly wrote the document didn't exist. McDonald never replied to this counterargument.]
[Editor's Note: Those who check the links above will see that McDonald did discuss "situational ethics" in this section of his second rebuttal, but he did not address Till's claim that concepts of good and evil are mental abstractions like abstract concepts of beauty, sadness, fairness, etc. To use McDonald's own term, such concepts are certainly "subjective," but moral concepts of good and evil are also subjective. McDonald cannot make morality, i. e., concepts of good and evil, objective by merely asserting that it is.]
[Editor's Note: Those who check the link to McDonald's reference above will see that he did not explain here why it was necessary to kill the Amalakite children and babies. Instead of addressing this issue, McDonald wrongly accused Till of being an advocate of abortion, athough Till at the time opposed abortion. An editorial insertion after this section of his second rebuttal pointed out that when McDonald was affirming biblical inerrancy, Till had informed him that he was mistaken about Till's position on abortion, after which McDonald, in his third affirmative, apologized for the mistake. After this apology, McDonald again wrongly accused Till of being an advocate of abortion.]
[Editor's Note: McDonald should have "go[ne] into the subject further," because he never gave any specific, concrete information to show that "textual criticism, logic, and the testimony of others" could prove conclusively that the original autographs were inspired. The link above to the page that McDonald cited in his second rebuttal will show that he just claimed to have "made arguments on textual criticism in [his] first rebuttal" and that Till had not "dealt with them." His first rebuttal, however, will show that he mentioned "textual criticism" here and here, and here, but did not in any of these places attempt to explain how textual criticism can be used to prove the inerrancy of the original autographs. In his third affirmative, he submitted a quotation from Gleason Archer as an explanation of how textual criticism can establish inerrancy: "(T)he science of lower criticism (textual criticism) is concerned with the task of restoring the original texts on the basis of the imperfect copies which have been preserved to us. It attempts to sift the evidence provided by the variants, or different readings, where the surviving manuscripts disagree with each other, and by the use of a scientific system, arrive at what was most probably the wording used by the original author" (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, p. 54). Here, in very abstract terms, Archer was explaining how textual criticism can "restore the original texts," but restoration of original texts would not extablish that those original texts were inerrant. McDonald never did answer Till's request for an explanation of how textual criticism can prove the inerrancy of the original autographs. He consistently confused mere mentioning with explaining or answering.]
Well, all fourteen places where he said I did not respond to are there. Now what does he have to complain about? Read my articles closer, Farrell, and you will not have to suffer such embarrassment.
"1 Kings chapter one only shows that Bathsheba came to David just before his death and asked him to make Solomon the one who would reign after his death. Apparently there was some concern about who would reign after David's death, but this does not nullify the idea of Solomon co-reigning with David before his death, and even some time before his death." [sic] (McDonald's Rejoinder, p.3) [sic]
Mr. Till convienently [sic] overlooked this statement when he ridiculed me for not answering his point here. We can only wonder why! He says that he did an analysis of 1 Kings 1 & 2 to show that if I would not accept 1 Chronicles 23-29 as proof that Solomon was made king in the final year of David's reign that [sic] 1 Kings 1 & 2 shows the exact time that it happened. The funny thing about that is that I blew his theory on 1 Chronicles 23-29 all to pieces. I showed that David chose Solomon to be the king in 1 Chronicles 23:1: "So when David was old and full of days, he made Solomon his son king over Israel." Then the next verse says: "And he (David) gathered all the princes of Israel, with the priests and the Levites." (v.2) Now 1 Chronicles 26:31 shows that the Hebronites were sought for in the fortieth year of David's reign. Then 1 Chronicles 28:2,11,12 says: "Then David stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren and my people... [sic] Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upperchambers thereof, and of the inner parlors thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat. And the pattern of all that he had by the Spirit..." [sic] Now if we take all this at "face value" as Mr. Till contends that we should, we have to understand it this way. [1] David made Solomon King over Israel before he called Israel to the work and service of the temple. [2] The Hebronites were sought for in the final year of David's reign. [3] This must have been some time before David's death, because David was the one who did it and he was still strong enough to do it. [4] David stood on his feet and addressed Israel and gave Solomon, who was already king in Israel, the charge to build the temple. Now we come to 1 Kings 1 & 2. Where was David when this happened, and what condition was he in? He was in his chambers in bed. He was very near death, his body was cold [sic] and they brought a young virgin in to give him heat. [sic](1 kings 1:2,3) [sic] He was so out of it that he did not even know that she was there. (1 Kings 1:4) [sic] Bathsheba comes into his chambers and tells him what has taken place between Adonijah and Solomon (a dispute over who would be king). David talks to Nathan the prophet and calls for Zadok the priest. He tells them to anoint Solomon as the official king in Israel. David lives for very few days after this. [sic] (2:1) [sic] He gives Solomon a final charge, and dies. [sic] (2:2-10) [sic]
[Editor's Note: McDonald's claim that David was "so out of it" at this time near the end of his life that he didn't even know that the virgin Abishag was "there," i. e., in bed with him, exemplifies McDonald's inability to understand biblical texts. The verse cited simply says that "the king knew her not," which was just the biblical way of saying that David did not have sexual relations with her. This meaning is brought out very clearly in modern translations like the New American Standard, which says, "(B)ut the king did not cohabit with her." The same texts that McDonald cited above show that David, at this time in his old age, was not so "out of it" that he was unable to converse and conduct official business. He was able to receive Bathsheba, who informed him of Adonijah's attempt to seize the throne and implored him to make Solomon king (1 Kings 1:15-21), after which he also conferred with the prophet Nathan, who interrupted the meeting with Bathsheba to give David details about Adonijah's conspiracy (1 Kings 1:22-27). Upon hearing Nathan's report, David summoned Bathsheba to return, at which time David assured her that Solomon would inherit the throne (1 Kings 1:28-31). Then David ordered Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah to go to Solomon, put him on David's mule, and parade him to the accompaniment of trumpets, and bring him to the throne to be anointed king (1 Kings 1:31-37). The crowning ceremony itself was then described in verses 38-48, which end with David's blessing Yahweh the god of Israel, "who has granted one to sit on my throne today while my own eyes see it." After this, in chapter 2, David gave instructions to Solomon about people whom he wanted Solomon to punish, so as this version of the end of David's life was related, he was hardly the incapacitated, bed-ridden invalid that McDonald depicted above. Some biblical commentators, in fact, like Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown, see 1 Kings 1:32-48 as a summation of the more detailed ceremonial description in 1 Chronicles 23-29.]
How do we harmonize the two accounts? The Chronicles account is showing all that happened while David was still strong enough to work in his kingdom. He makes Solomon king over Israel, but he himself still reigns. He begins calling Israel to work on and serve in the temple. This takes some time. Some of these people had to come from great distances. After David finishes this work, he stands on his own two feet and gives Israel her charge, and gives Solomon the plans for the temple. As time nears for his death, his body cannot even contain its heat. A virgin is brought in to warm him up, but he does not even know she is there. [Editorial Note: See the editorial insertion above, which explains that McDonald did not understand that the expression "the king knew her not" simply meant that David did not having sexual relations with the virgin Abishag.] Adonijah hears of his father's illness and decides that this is the best time to usurp the kingship. He proclaims himself to be king. This is brought to David's attention, and he restates his intentions to make Solomon the king. When this is done, he gives Solomon one final charge, to remain faithful to God, [sic] then he dies. How long Solomon co-reigned with David is something that we do not know. However, Mr. Till has not by any stretch of the imagination, proven that it was done in the final year of David's reign. He brought up the fact that David was old and full of days. Well, my dad is old and full of days (at the age of 89) and has been for the last 20 years, but he is not on his death bed. He just retired from full-time local work this past year. He will still write and preach on occasion. Mr. Till assumed too much and his argument ended up proving nothing at all for his case. Now, Farrell, I have dealt with it. By the way, he did not even attempt to deal with what I said about 1 Chronicles 23-29 in my second rebuttal. I wonder why?
1 Kings 6:1 shows that work began on the temple four years after Solomon took the kingdom from David to rule by himself. I Chron. 23 shows that some time before David died, he made Solomon a king of Israel, but he was only co-reigning because David was still alive and still reigned. In 1 Kings chapters 1 and 2 David was on his death bed and was unable to perform the functions that he had performed in 1 Chron. chapters 23ff. So they are not talking about the same instances. So there is no problem with 1 Kings 6:1.
Is there a problem between 2 Samuel 16:5-8 and 1 Kings 2:8-9? David swore that he would not slay Shemei, but this did not mean he would never be slain. David did not take the time to kill Shemei because he was having problems with his son Absolom [sic]. However, David did ask Solomon to take care of him because of his evil works, before he left the throne. David did leave it up to Solomon as to what would be done and how it should be done. Mr. Till does not seem to like it when God's enemies or the enemies of God's people were punished for their evil works. Now he does not mind it when these evil people murder, etc., the Israelites, but the Israelites never have a reason for taking revenge on those who have done them wrong. Well [sic] is it because it is a continual reminder of what lays [sic] in store for him for the evil works that he has done?
Solomon did give Shemei the chance to live, but Shemei would not do as he was instructed. He lived where Solomon instructed for three years, but then he decided that he would leave which caused his execution. Now Mr. Till makes something of the three years and tries to show that work on the temple began four years after the events in 1 Chron. chapter 23. I have already shown that the events that took place in 1 Chronicles chapter 23 was [sic] sometime [sic] before the events in 1 Kings 1 and 2. Mr. Till has to assume that the two are one and the same events. However before he can do this he must show that David, in 1 Kings 1 and 2, did all of the events between 1 Chronicles chapters 23 and 28. He cannot do this because 1 Chronicles 28:2 says that David stood upon his feet and addressed the people while 1 Kings chapters 1 and 2 shows that David was bedfast. Even Mr. Till admits that in 1 Kings 1 and 2 David was on his deathbed: "...,[sic] but evidently he had later regretted having made the vow, because on his deathbed (und. mine jm), he asked Solomon to bring Shemei's 'hoar head down to Sheol with blood' (2:8-9)." Also notice: "When David was 'old and stricken in years' (1:1) and was bedridden under the care of the young virgin Abishag, David's son Adonijah declared himself king (1:5-10)." Now Mr. Till insists that this [sic] the same time frame as 1 Chronicles chapters 23-28. However, 1 Chronicles 23-28 shows David a lively man, a man who is able to stand on his feet, a man who is able to do a lot of work, assigning people their jobs in the temple, overseeing the gathering of materials for the temple, etc. While 1 Kings 1-2 shows a man who is bedfast and unable to even know when someone lays [sic] down with him to give him heat. [sic] (1 Kings 1:4) [sic] Now when he can reconcile that, he might have an argument, but not until.
[Editor's Note: An editorial insertion above documented McDonald's fundamental misunderstanding of the expression "the king knew her not" as well as other statements in 1 Kings 1 that clearly indicated David's ability at this time, despite his infirmity, to conduct official business. The same editorial note pointed out that some reliable Bible commentaries see 1 Kings 1:32-48 as a condensed version of 1 Chronicles 23-29.]
In 1 Kings 2:46 Solomon executed Shemei for breaking the agreement between them. Three chapters later work began on the temple which tells us that this was four years after Solomon had been made the king of Israel, which was at or around the death of David. Now what Mr. Till must prove is that between 1 Kings 2:46 and 1 Kings 6:1 there was no timespan. If one year lapsed between the two events, Mr. Till's whole argument is down the drain. The events which took place between those two places certainly show that at least a year had intervened. In 1 Kings 3:1 Solomon made peace with the Pharaoh of Egypt and married his daughter. (I guess this was done immediately.) It would take some time for immesaries [sic] to get back and forth and for peace to be agreed upon, and also for the Pharoah's daughter to go to Solomon to marry him. In 1 Kings 3:16-28 Solomon made the decision which made him famous for his wisdom and all of Israel had heard about it. Since they did not have Dan Rather on the Six O'clock news, I am assuming that it took some time for all of Israel to hear about this. 1 Kings 5:14 tells us about Solomon [sic] sending workers to Lebanon for a month, then allowed them to come home for two months, before they went back to Lebanon to work. This went on every month. I think we can make the assumption that at least a year went by before work began on the temple. These people were over there gathering materials so work could begin on the temple. So until Mr. Till can at least do away with these, his argument falls.
Mr. Till has not come up with a specific passage specifically stating that David made Solomon king over Israel while he was still reigning. All he has is implication. 1 Kings 1 and 2 say nothing about a co-reign. These chapters show that David appointed Saul to be the king over Israel. Apparently he had given up the kingship to Solomon. Mr. Till could not prove a co-reign from this if his life depended upon it. David did not live much beyond this event. He was dead within a very short time after he said this.
There is a difference between the accounts of 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 in dealing with Ahaziah's age. I have never denied this. However, what I have asked Mr. Till to do is to prove that the difference constitutes a contradiction. All of us admit that there is a difference, but a difference does not necessitate a contradiction. He says that I have not given one verse of scripture to give Biblical precedent to the 20-year co-reign theory. Well, where is his specific passage specifically stating the 1-year co-reign theory between David and Solomon? He has none. He uses implication, just as I have used implication in setting forth my idea of Ahaziah's condition. Let him prove that David lived for one year after 1 Kings 1 and 2. He cannot do it. The only thing he has is implication, just exactly what I have been using.
He says that I am attempting to prove inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. No, I am not attempting to prove anything. I am simply disproving. (By the way, did you notice his perfect grammar: "McDonald concludes that somehow they both have to me [sic] right."? [sic] And that is from the English professor who complains about my errors in diction. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.) Mr. Till you are in the affirmative. You are supposed to prove that there are contradictions in the Bible. Readers, let me suggest that he is attempting to prove errancy by assuming errancy. He assumes that the Bible is errant, [sic] therefore [sic] he has to go to the Bible to find contradictions in it. Believe me when I say that when he reads the Bible he reads it with the idea in mind that he is going to find contradictions in it. Now if he can do such a thing, why does he condemn me? If such a method is dishonest for me, it is dishonest for him. Tell me [sic] Mr. Till, when you read the Bible, are you reading it with the intentions of harmonizing the Bible? And don't even bother about giving us this long spill about how you were so innocently duped into believing the Bible and how you found these contradictions while doing your own personal study. And how you made your decision that the Bible was not God's word only after all of the evidence is in, because by your own admission that is not the way it happened. Notice his letter to me, dated July 27, 1989:
"By September of 1963, I realized that textual inconsistencies and discrepancies I had begun to notice in my personal Bible studies would no longer allow me to continue preaching or even participate in worship services. I decided to 'drop out' until I had found satisfactory answers to the problems that were bothering me." [sic] (Emp. added) [sic] (Letter from Till to McDonald, July 27, 1989) [sic]
I brought this up in my first rebuttal and you saw how he dealt with it. That's right, [sic] he did not even mention it. Why? Because it simply shows that he does nothing more than go to the Bible to find contradictions. He does the very thing he condemns me for doing.
He wants me to find statements that contradict each other so he can show by what he calls my "how-it-could-have-been" methods that there is no discrepancy. Well [sic] let me see... [sic] His old buddy Swindler and I had a debate on the Resurrection and Swindler made these two statements:
"He again refers to Tacitus and Josephus as having made reference to Jesus. Both were too far removed in time to have first hand knowledge of the situation.... One cannot relate writers then with historical writers now, because there were no printing presses, newspapers, precious little records, none at all in many cases..." (Swindler's Second Rebuttal, p.9) [sic]
However, when I denied his claim that the Roman Empire did not keep good records, he responded by saying:
"As to records being kept back in the first century, he denies that there were not good records. I do want to thank him for that admission and this is exactly what I wanted him to say, because it is true that the Romans did keep very good records of official actions and there is not one about the existence of Jesus, let alone his resurrection." [sic] (Swindler's Third Rebuttal, p.9) [sic]
Now would you please harmonize those two statements? One statement is falsifiable while the other statement is not. I believe the second statement (only the part that concerns the point of Rome keeping good records) is true. The Roman Empire did keep good records, and there were records for Josephus and Tacitus to write from. However, that contradicts the idea that there were precious little records, none in most cases. You see when it was to Swindler's advantage to say that there were little or no records he made such a statement. However, when the evidence went against him, he said that there were very good records kept. He was not conceding anything, [sic] he was saying that such was his position all along. So now, answer that one.
He says that a contradiction is an inconsistency, and upon that we are agreed. However, an inconsistency is not necessarily a contradiction. He wants to know what difference it makes if we call Ahaziah's age a contradiction or an inconsistency. Well, the difference is that it is neither one. It is merely a difference. A difference is not necessarily an inconsistency or a contradiction. [Editor's Note: Those who check the link above will see that Till said that it makes no difference whether the discrepancy in Ahaziah's age is called a "contradiction or a discrepancy or an inconsistency," because "(a)ny of the designations makes it an error, and the inerrancy doctrine that McDonald believes in leaves no room for errors whether they be contradictions (in the strict philosophical sense), inconsistencies, or discrepancies." McDonald ignored this counterargument in order to quibble about Copi's definition of contradiction, which is a definition that Till never intended whenever he used the word. Till also defined inconsistency as "contrarieties or incongruities that defy coordination of meaning," so McDonald consistently ignored what Till claimed when he referred to contradictions and inconsistencies in the Bible. Till consistently used the terms to denote errors.] If he wants to call it a difference, I will agree that there is a difference in the stating of his age; one passage says 22 the other says 42. However, I have already shown that two statements can be different and logically both be right; such is called a sub-contrary [sic]. Now if he wants to call this a difference, that is fine with me. However [sic] if he is to show that these two statements contradict each other he must show that one position is true while the other is false. He may want to prove that they are contraries. However, he cannot prove that they qualify as contradictions. Copi says that contraries are statements that, [sic] "might both be false, but both cannot be true...". [sic] (Introduction to Logic, p.346) [sic] They might both be false, but both cannot be true. In order to prove that such is a contrary, he is going to have to show where at least one is false, and possibly even both of them. At the very least, he is going to have to show where at least one of them is false, and to date he has not been able to do even this much. Which one is false, and which one is true? He may even show that both of them are false. I have shown where both of them can be true, thus putting them into the category of the sub-contrary [sic] where both can be true, but both cannot be false. Let him show that the difference between these two statements prove that God could not have inspired men to write them. That is his obligation, [sic] now let him carry it out.
Then he complains because I used the dictionary in the oral debate on the word "real." I have already shown that in every instance that the word applied to the debate, the word "real" meant objective, absolute. Even his own dictionary, which he handed me in that debate, defined it as "authentic", [sic] "genuine", [sic] and according to my thesaurus, the word "absolute" is a synonym for both "genuine" and "authentic". [sic] So any way he turns he is in trouble on the wording of the proposition he tried to defend in that debate. However, when I was in the affirmative, I defined the word "real" (which was in my proposition as well) as "absolute, objective." I, then, asked him if God was guilty of "real" moral atrocities while discussing my proposition, and his answer was that God was guilty of "real" moral atrocities. So any way he turns he is defeated.
He says that when he used the phrase "very, very sure" in connection with the Midianite virgins, that [sic] he used the word "very" as an adverb modifying the adjective "sure." Oh, well [sic] let us look at the adverb usage of "very": "1: to a high degree: exceedingly [a ~ hot day] [ ~ much better] 2: in actual fact: truly [the ~ best store in town] [told the ~ same story]" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.1292) [sic] In "actual fact", [sic] means "absolute", [sic] "objective" because the word "actual" means "objective". [sic] So he has the same problem here as he did in the other. I submit to you that he is not free from his problem yet. The word "sure" means: "5: admitting of no doubt: certain indisputable [spoken from ~ knowledge]." [sic] (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.1163) [sic] Synonyms of "certain" are "unerring", [sic] "absolute", [sic] "authentic", [sic] "real", [sic]"actual". [sic] So even though the "word" know [sic] is not there, it means "know," or without a doubt. There was no doubt in his mind. It is an indisputable fact. So in other words, "I do not absolutely know" but it is an indisputable fact. "I do not absolutely know", [sic] but "I do absolutely know." He says he did not use the word "know." Well, he did not use the word "absolute" either, but that is what it means.
[Editor's Note: The paragraph above exemplies McDonald's linguistic ignorance possibly more than anything else he said in the debate. Almost any given word in the English language will have multiple definitions, so the meanings of words will be determined by the way a speaker or writer uses them. In no specific context can a word have more than one meaning, but McDonald seems to think that he can arbitrarily assign to an opponent's words any definition that he can find in a dictionary. Throughout the debate, McDonald chided Till for refusing to say that he absolutely knew his position on the Bible was right. In his latest response to McDonald's ridicule of this position, Till said that "it is extremely difficult for anyone to know anything in the sense of absolute, unequivocal knowledge." In his second rebuttal, McDonald reacted to this with a two-paragraph tirade about Till's danger of winding up like "like poor old Cratylus," whose agnosticism eventually led him to take the position that he "could not know anything for sure." Now, after that rebuke, McDonald in his very next rebuttal tried to use the dictionary to distort Till's use of the phrase "very, very sure" into meaning "to know absolutely," something that Till had repeatedly said he thought was practically impossible.]
Then he tried using the English dictionary to define the English translation of Koine Greek words. That would be the same as trying to use the Koine Greek lexicon to define an English word. He would not allow that, and he knows it. The only reason he tries it the other way is because he is trying to work his way out of a bind. The English word "Christian" comes from the Greek word "Xristianous" [sic] which means: "a Christian, a follower of Christ." [sic] (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.439) [sic] The same thing is true on the word "church." It comes from the Greek word "ekklesia" which means: "a popular assembly." [sic] (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.123) [sic] Also for a more specific meaning: "a company of Christians...". [sic] (Thayer's Greek to English Lexicon of the New Testament, p.196) [sic] The word "church" did not become known as a building for centuries after the Bible was written. The word "virgin" comes from the Greek word "Parthenos" which means "a virgin, a maid,... chaste." [sic] (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.309) [sic] The word "parthenos" was the greek [sic] word for the maid who had never known a man by lying with him. It was translated from the Hebrew word "alma" which was the Hebrew word for the maid who had never known man by lying with him.
The difference between what I did, [sic] and what he is trying to do is, [sic] I used an English dictionary to give English secular definitions to English secular words. He used the English dictionary to give English secular definitions to Greek and Hebrew Biblical words, and he cannot do such. If he is going to discuss Bible words, he needs a Bible dictionary which deals with the languages in which the Bible was written. The Bible was written in three dead languages. The meanings of those words do not change. However, the meaning of English words do change because it is not a dead language. My actions were legitimate, [sic] his were not.
[Editor's Note: The English word virgin does not "come from the Greek word parthenos" but, as any etymological dictionary will confirm, from the Latin word virgo, which meant "maiden." Likewise, the Hebrew word almâh meant "maiden" and not "virgin." Reputable Hebrew lexicons like Brown, Driver, and Briggs define it as "young woman (ripe sexually; maid or newly married" (Hendrickson Publishers, 1999, p. 761), so the word in Hebrew made no reference to sexual purity. Fundamentalists claim that almâh meant virgin" only because of the Septuagint's mistranslation of the word as parthenos, which Matthew in turn missaplied to the birth of Jesus.]
The rule was that: [sic] "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." David was the 10th generation, [sic] and therefore cleansed. The rule said "even to" the 10th generation; this did not, however, include the 10th generation. Mr. Till makes a play on the word "even." He would have a point if the word "to" was not there. Mr. Till wants it to read this way: "A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord even the tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." This would forbid David from holding office in Israel. However, the only way Mr. Till can get this is to delete the word "to". [sic] "Even To The Tenth Generation", [sic] Mr. Till! "Also to the tenth generation..." [sic] "So much as to the tenth generation..." Mr. Till [sic] all Satan did was to delete one word from God's command and he caused Adam and Eve to sin. He deleted the word "not", [sic] Mr. Till deletes the word "to". [sic] What is the difference? He then said: "It mean [sic]: 'to a degree that extends to: loyal even unto death,' says the American Heritage Dictionary on this particular usage of the word even." [sic] (p.8) [sic] Is this person to be loyal even in death? That is the inference that Till is trying to push. Is this person to be loyal in death, or to the point that he dies? I think that it is proper to understand the phrase as saying that one is to be loyal until that person dies. When that person dies, there is no expectation for loyalty. In Revelation 2:10 Jesus said: [sic] "...be thou faithful unto death, and I will give unto thee a crown of life." Question: Did Jesus mean that one was to be faithful in death? Was he saying that when one dies, he is to continue to be faithful so as to receive this crown of life? Or was he saying that one was to be faithful until he dies, and he would receive the crown of life? I think that even Mr. Till knows what the answer to that is. Why the quibble?
Deuteronomy 23:3 forbade full-blood Moabites from holding office in the kingdom of Israel for ten generations. If Ruth had married a Moabite man, and had prosylited [sic] to the Jewish faith with her husband, that family, unto the tenth generation could not hold office. The tenth generation and on could have, but up to that point, they could not have. Ruth married an Israelite, and the bloodline of the Moabite was stopped there. Since David was not a full-blood Moabite, he did not fall under condemnation of that law. Mr. Till argues:
"...that a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, 'even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of Yahweh forever'! The word that I have emphasize should settle the matter of whether David qualified to enter the assembly. The wording of the passage is such to indicate that a permanent ban from the assembly was pronounced against bastards, Ammonites, and Moabites. The clear intention of the passage was to state that they were permanently banned forever that 'even ten generations' wouldn't be long enough to remove the ban." [sic] (p.8) [sic]
If Mr. Till does not know that both the English and the Hebrew words (which translate) "ever" (and that is what the Hebrew word "forever" comes from according to Strongs [sic] Exhaustive Concordance), carries [sic] with it, the meaning of: [sic] "...at any time" (see both Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary, p.86 and Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.392) then I wonder what he has been teaching his composition students all these years! When one reads the context of the passage that Till raises, it can be seen that God was saying: [sic] "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord at any time." In other words, at no time, during this period of time, until the tenth generation are these people to enter into the congregation of the Lord. When Thomas was born, I had taken off my smock that the Hospital had me wear during delivery, and I was carrying Thomas around, and a nurse jumped me and told me not to ever pick Thomas up again unless I had that smock on. Well [sic] my first thought was that this woman was an idiot, [sic] I was not going to purchase one of those things to wear every time I picked him up. However, after I had had a chance to reflect on it, I realized that she was only telling me not to pick him up without a smock, at any time, while we were still at the hospital. After we went home, we could do as we pleased. However, here the word "ever" or "forever" did not mean always. It meant, "at any time" during the duration of our stay. This is the meaning that I contend for in Deuteronomy 23:3.
[Editor's Note: Both the lexicons of Brown, Driver, and Briggs, (pp. 762-763) and Davidson, Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, (p. 601), define 'ôwlâm, the word translated forever in Deuteronomy 23:3, to mean "forever," "everlasting duration," and "indefinite duration to come," and Strong defined it with "time out of mind," "always," and "everlasting." Davidson cited the following passages as examples of how this word was used.
Brown, Driver, and Briggs cited these examples of how the word was used.
These were only a few of the examples cited in these lexicons to show that the Hebrew word 'ôwlâm conveyed the sense of "everlasting" and "forever." McDonald has again used selective definitions to try to find support for an untenable position.]
Mr. Till continues his day dream that I am in the affirmative and am supposed to be proving inspiration and inerrancy. He wants to know how my proving the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 proves inspiration. I do not know that it does, but I am not in the position of having to prove inspiration. I am in the position of disproving errancy. One of the arguments used by atheists to show that the Bible is not inspired is Mark 16:9-20. Therefore, I dealt with the argument to show that they have no argument. He is supposed to be proving, not me.
Again I used the argument on Aaron's rod to show that the atheist does not have an argument. Mr. Till is supposed to be proving that the Bible is not inspired of God, and I have shown that he cannot prove such. I am perfectly within my rights to produce negative arguments to disprove his proposition. I have already affirmed my proposition, [sic] now it is time for him to affirm his. I am on the offense, not the defense. I am supposed to attack, not defend. Mr. Till has it all mixed up.
Jimmy Swaggart's preaching condemned him, but Jimmy Swaggart did not condemn himself. In other words, Jimmy Swaggart did not tell people to avoid him. Why would a false teacher tell people to avoid him? [sic] (Rom. 16:17,18) [sic] Why would Satan tell men to resist him? [sic] (James 4:7) [sic] He brings up a story of a Catholic priest who publicly crusaded against "homosexuality" while he was secretly "practicing homosexuality." This is nothing more than the argument on Jimmy Swaggart. The priest did not condemn himself, [sic] his preaching condemned him, but he did not advise men to avoid him. He did not say: "I'm a homosexual, and I am in the wrong". [sic] No, I have a feeling that he kept his secret life, a secret so no one would find out. This does not touch top, side, nor [sic] bottom of my argument. Bad men would not have written a book that condemns their evil-doings. In other words, they are not going to write a book which would expose them for what they were. The Bible would expose them, [sic] therefore [sic] they could not have written the Bible. Anyone who thinks logically about the Bible can go to it to see whether or not one is truly a servant of God. That is and has been my argument all along, and Mr. Till knows it. So it will do no good for him to come up with stories about people preaching one thing and practicing another. These evil men would not write a book that would tell men, when they found out who they were, to avoid them and have nothing to do with them. Monetarily wise, it is not even profitable, because when people find out who you really are, they will not buy your material. By the way, Mr. Till said that this argument was a stupid argument when Thomas B. Warren made it. I do not recall ever hearing Thomas Warren make this argument. He might have, but I do not know anything about him making it. I got the argument from Roy C. Deaver. I have since listened to Bert Thompson's video tape on the inspiration of the Bible (I did not have it when I made the argument) [sic] and I have found that brother Thompson makes an argument so similar to this one that the difference would be negligible. So, I am not in such bad company after all. In fact Dr. Thompson made every (basic) argument, on that tape, that I made in defense of my proposition. So I am not so ridiculous after all.
[Editor's Note: McDonald fallaciously assumed that an argument is not ridiculous if someone else has presented the same argument. Both Roy C. Deaver and Bert Thompson were/are Church-of-Christ preachers, and Thompson is affiliated with Apologetics Press, an organization that exists primarily to defend biblical inspiration and inerrancy. Thompson and his co-editor Wayne Jackson have both refused to debate Till or to allow him to reprint articles published in Reason and Revelation, the primary publication of Apologetics Press. Citing them as sources is therefore the fallacy of appealing to biased authority.]
I have already explained 2 Kings 9:27-28 and 2 Chron. 22:7-9. One place says that when he died they carried him back to Jerusalem where they buried him. The other place simply says that when they had killed him they buried him. Who is the "they" who buried him? Well, 2 Kings 9:27-28 says that his servants carried him back to Jerusalem and buried him. Ahaziah had servants with him and as Cooke said: "Jehu's servants slew him but allowed his servants to bury him (see 2 K ix, 28). [sic] (Bible Commentary on the Old Testament 1 Samuel through Esther, p.403) [sic] Mr. Till gets upset if the rules of the Hebrew and the Greek language do not match the rules of the English Language. Where is the Hebrew rule that says that Hebrew Pronouns have to have specific antecedents? I have read everything I have on Hebrew Pronouns and find nothing as to antecedents period. Before Till can say that this is a discrepancy he must show that Biblical Hebrew Pronouns had to have specific antecedents. He is not going to be able to judge the Bible by English grammar laws. The Bible was translated into English, but the English translation still had to follow the Hebrew and Greek in order to be a proper translation. Till likes the newer versions (NAB [sic] etc) because the translators have tried to make the Bible conform to English standards and have thereby had to do some interpreting rather than translating.
[Editor's Note: Any basic Hebrew grammar, such as Biblical Hebrew by Kittel, Hoffer, and Wright will show that Hebrew has person, gender, and number in its pronouns. The rules for agreement are basically the same as in English. Common sense should have told McDonald that unless pronouns agree with their antecedents, linguistic chaos would result. Those who imagine using femine pronouns to refer to masculine antecedents or vice versa and singular pronouns to refer to plural antecedents can easily visualize the confusion that would result in a language if it had no basic rules of agreement. It would be somewhat as if someone should say of a girl who bought a new purse and then lost it, "On the way home, the girl lost his purse."]
Then he goes back to the scenario of Y saying he missed work for three day because he was sick and if Y's boss wrote in a memo to the supervisor that Y was sick for seven days, three of which he missed work, and then Till says: [sic] "...it would be acceptable..., but we are not talking about what is acceptable and unacceptable; we are talking about what constitutes inerrancy." Why not? Why are we not talking about what is acceptable and what is not? Why does the Bible have to pass Mr. Till's special scrutiny (one to which he would not subject any other book on the face of the earth)? Why is it that Mr. Till will not allow God to author a book which is written in the language of the people? The one and only reason is because Mr. Till has made up his mind that the Bible is not inspired, and now he must formulate a premise to fit his conclusion. And he calls that objective, criticial analysis! If Y told his boss that he missed work for 3 days because of sickness, but the boss had knowledge of the fact that Y had been sick for 7 days, it would be an inerrant (that is unless one accepts Till's definition of inerrancy) account for the boss to write in a memo that Y had been sick for 7 days. He was sick for 7 days and he missed work for 3 of those 7 days. Mr. Till admits that this is an acceptable [sic]: "capable or worthy of being accepted..." [sic] (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.6) [sic] What would be wrong with it? Well, in Mr. Till's mind there can be no difference at all in what one writer says, and in what another writer says. But notice Mr. Till's own statement (and I have produced this statement before and will continue to produce it throughout this debate as long as Till brings this up as a contradiction): "Slight variations in the wording of what Gad said to David in presenting the three choices could be explained on the basis of one writer choosing to tell more details of the conversation than the other...". [sic] (Till's Third Rebuttal, p.23) [sic] Again, I say, amen, amen, amen. That is exactly what I contend for. Till says that my explanation is acceptable. So what more do I need?
[Editor's Note: McDonald has again set up a straw man so that he could ignore Till's rebuttal argument. In that rebuttal, Till said, "If Y returned to work and said to his boss, 'I was sick for three days,' it would not be an inerrant account of what Y said if the boss wrote a memo that said, 'Y returned to work today and said, "I was sick for seven days."" Such a memo would not be an inerrant account, because Y did not say, "I was sick for seven days"; he said, "I was sick for three days." McDonald never explained how a memo that said that Y had been sick for seven days and missed work for three of those days would be an inerrant account of what Y said, if Y had actually said, "I was sick for three days."
He says that he has overlooked some quibbles from my last rebuttals. Let us take a look at those quibbles:
And he says that he has overlooked some other quibbles! He gives the word "some" a whole new meaning. He said that I overlooked 14 of his arguments, and I showed that I answered all of them. He, however, has overlooked 33 of my arguments and statements. Let him show where he has answered them. Now to his further affirmative arguments.
He claims that there were times when Paul wrote as if he were anything but inspired and goes to 1 Cor. 7:12: "But to the rest say I, not the Lord." Paul was saying that Christ did not address this during his personal ministry, and now he has to address it. Then he goes to verse 40: "But she is happier if she abide as she is, after my judgement: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God." I have already dealt with one similar to this when I was in the affirmative. Paul was giving his judgement (his inspired judgement). He was allowed by the Holy Spirit to give his judgement on this, and it was inspired. As far as his statement: "I think I have the spirit of God." [sic] is concerned this is no different from one saying, "I think I am right" when he knows he is right. It is an expression of speech.
The word for "I think" here is the word "doko" which means: "to think, imagine, suppose, presume..., to seem, appear..., it seems; it seems good, best, or right..." (The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised, p.104) [sic] This could be translated "I imagine I have the spirit of God...", [sic] or "I suppose I have the spirit of God...", [sic] or "I presume that I have the spirit of God...," [sic] or "it seems that I have the spirit of God...". [sic] All of these would be acceptable. As already stated it is an expression of speech that Paul would be allowed to use as it was his style of writing. The only argument that Mr. Till has is that he (Till) thinks that the dictation theory of inspiration is the correct one. Given his view of inspiration, it is of little wonder that he finds so many discrepancies in the Bible. However, his base (idea of inspiration) is false, [sic] therefore [sic] his whole position is false.
[Editor's Note: McDonald's last statement above is a typical example of his faulty logic. If, for example, someone should argue from a "base" premise that the Old Testament was inspired by Satan (as certain first-century gnostic sects actually did) and was therefore inerrant, would McDonald say that since the "base idea of inspiration" is false, the whole position is false, and so the Old Testament could not be inerrant?]
Then he brings up the accusation that some made against Paul that they questioned what he preached as though these were good, honest, and sincere friends of Paul's who were just trying to be honest by saying something like: "Oh [sic] Paul, you know, he is a good old boy, but I question some of what he preaches." No, these were false teachers who were trying to discredit Paul because he preached what they did not want to hear. Gal. 1:11-20 is the same type of thing. He claims that Paul was forgetful, but as we shall soon see, Paul was not as forgetful as Till would like for him to be. I will reduce his argument on 1 Cor. 1:14-16 to dust and relegate it to the trash bin where it belongs.
Then he brings up Luke's statement: "it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first..." to show that Luke was not inspired, but that he researched the things he wrote. Luke was only saying that his account was the most chronological and detailed account of the four. Matthew, Mark and John were not as detailed and chronological as Luke's account was. Luke was writing to the Greeks, people who demanded detail and chronology, and he was telling them that his account was such an account. He did not do this because he did not trust the other accounts, but so that the Greeks would have an account to which they could relate. Till brought up the point that Luke said that it seemed good to him to do this, "not because he was under the influence of some irresistible divine spell that was moving him to write." This may be part of Till's problem. He does not understand that Luke was not under some spell or some irresistible urge to write. He was in full control of his faculties. The Holy Spirit gave him the words, and he wrote them using his own style and taking into consideration those who would be the recipients. 2 Peter 1:20-21 shows that the inspired men were to write what the Holy Spirit told them to write, not what they interpreted the Holy Spirit to mean.
[Editor's Note: If the Holy Spirit did "give [Luke} the words" that he wrote and if "inspired men" wrote "what the Holy Spirit told them to write," why would that not be the same kind of inspiration that McDonald derogatorily called "dictation," as he also did below?]
Till brings up Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 5:9: "I wrote unto you in my epistle not to keep company with fornicators..." and says that Paul must have written a letter before this one which would make this one the second letter to the Corinthians and what we call the second would actually be the third. He then says that this means that God allowed the first letter to be lost which would make about as much sense as God allowing the original manuscripts to be lost.
There is no doubt that Paul refers (in 5:9) to a previous letter. The letter was undoubtedly lost and may or may not ever be found. This however does not nullify the inspiration of the Bible. Let us notice Mr. Till [sic] basic argument set out in syllogistic form:
Major Premise: If there was a letter written to the church in Corinth previous to the letter commonly known as 1 Corinthians which was apparently lost, then the Bible is not inspired by God.
Minor Premise: There was a letter written to the church in Corinth previous to the letter commonly known as 1 Corinthians which was apparently lost.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is not inspired by God.
Now, would someone please show me why that particular consequent would necessarily follow from the antecedent? Does the fact that a letter being lost necessitate the conclusion that the Bible is not inspired? No. The only real argument that anyone (including Till) could have is that God, through his providential care, did not preserve that letter. However, until all of the evidence is in, Mr. Till cannot even make that assertion. It could be that in 100 years from now someone will unearth that letter and when it is checked out and found to be the first letter to the church in Corinth, it will be added to the Bible. All that Mr. Till has to say concerning this subject does not prove his contention that the Bible is not inspired by God.
Mr. Till makes reference to the original manuscripts and to his idea that they were not preserved. Again, he cannot make such an assertion until all of the evidence is in. It may be that sometime in the future that [sic] the original autographs will be found. Then where will Mr. Till be? What will he use as an argument then? What about us [sic] having to glean truth from copies which Till says have been corrupted by scribal errors and mistranslations? In the first place I have challenged Till in previous articles to prove that all manuscripts are erroneous. He cannot do it. We have enough manuscript evidence to find what the truth is when we study them. Secondly why does Mr. Till think that God should give us the Bible on a silver platter? If he did, most people would not care anything about it. One of the things that keeps us, as humans going, is the search for truth. If truth was [sic] handed to us on a silver platter we would often ignore it. No, God wants us to work for the truth. Those who love truth will work to find it, [sic] those who do not will not. They will sit around and complain because it was not handed to them on a silver platter. God never promised that studying the Bible was going to be easy. Paul wrote to Timothy to: [sic] "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be [sic] ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." [sic] (2 Tim. 2:15) [sic] We are to study, work hard and diligently, as workmen who do not need to be ashamed as they stand approved unto God, for they are rightly dividing the word of truth. Bible study is often hard work. Those who want to take the easy way out will often end up like Farrell Till.
However, if the letter, referred to in 5:9, is found, it will be found to be in perfect harmony with everything else in God's word. It will not teach anything different than [sic] what is taught in the rest of the Bible.
He brings up Colossians 4:16: "And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it also be read to the Laodicians; and that likewise ye read the epistle from Laodicea." [sic] and states that this was a reference either to a lost epistle or to one that was not allowed in the canon. Who says it has to be either one? Let me give another alternative: Paul wrote many epistles, [sic] these epistles were circulated throughout the churches at that time. Who is to say that Paul wrote an epistle to Laodicea? Why could this not be a reference to an epistle that Paul wrote to, lets [sic] say for example, Ephesus, which had been circulated throughout various churches and it was now in Laodicea. Paul's instructions here were to read an epistle which was in Laodicea. Since Colossea [sic] was in close proximity to Laodicea, they were to take their epistle to the Ladoicean's [sic] and exchange it for the one that they (the Ladoicean's [sic]) had. Is this not a probable explanation which will destroy Till's quibble?
To all of this Till says: "All of these facts are more than enough to descredit the claim that the Bible was inspired by God...". [sic] [Editor's Note: In his manuscript, Till spelled discredit correctly.] Will Mr. Till be so kind as to show us, how a (presumed) lost letter, and (presumed) lost original manuscripts, as well as Mr. Till's misunderstanding of Colossians 4:16 proves [sic] that the Bible is not inspired by God. If the original manuscripts are lost forever, will this prove that they were not inspired by God? If the first letter to the Corinthian's [sic] is never found will this prove that the Bible is not inspired by God? Suppose that Colossians 4:16 does refer to a lost letter, will this prove that the Bible is not inspired by God? He ought to be ashamed for even introducing material like that.
Then we come to 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 which Mr. Till seems to think proves conclusively that the Bible is not inspired by God. Before we get into this, it needs to be stressed that Mr. Till's view of inspiration is false. His view is that the Holy Spirit simply dictated and the writers wrote what was dictated. [Editor's Note: Till does not believe that the Bible was inspired by dictation from the Holy Spirit. He does not even believe that any such entity as the Holy Spirit exists. He simply recognizes that the Bible teaches that the Bible was so inspired. In his three-part series, which begins here, he shows that the Bible teaches a "dictation" method of inspiration by which God put his words into the mouths of the prophets, apostles, and biblical writers.] When one gets past Mr. Till's view of inspiration, one will clearly see that there are no errors in the passages he produces. Another thing that must be stressed is that we must take into consideration all that is written on any subject in the Bible. Mr. Till has the idea that every verse should stand on its own merit, and that no one should be able to put it with other verses of scripture to make sense out of it. Although Mr. Till would not allow this to be done with any other piece of literature on the face of this earth, he demands it be done with the Bible. Why? Simply because that is how he gets his so-called contradictions (which are not really contradictions) and inconsistencies. The reason for his allowance of this absurd method to be used in studying the Bible is because he made up his mind in 1963 that the Bible was not inspired before all of the evidence was in [sic] and now he has to formulate a premise to fit the conclusion he made back then. Notice the paragraph from a letter which he wrote me in 1989, which I have previously produced in this debate and Mr. Till refuses to even acknowlege it. That is alright [sic], I will just keep on producing it. It shows conclusively that Mr. Till made up his mind that the Bible was not inspired before all of the evidence was in.
[Editor's Note: Biblical inerrantists like McDonald never seem to think that they made up their minds, before "all the evidence was in," that the Bible is inspired.]
"... By September of 1963, I realized that textual inconsistencies and discrepancies I had begun to notice in my personal Bible studies would no longer allow me to continue preaching or even participate in worship services. I decided to 'drop out' until I had found satisfactory answers to the problems that were bothering me." [sic](Emp. added) [sic] (Letter from Till to McDonald, July 27, 1989, p.2) [sic]
He decided to "drop out" until he found satisfactory answers to problems that were bothering him. In other words, he "dropped out" before all of the evidence was in. This means that Mr. Till has formulated a conclusion before he did his research, and now in order to save face, he must formulate a premise to fit his conclusion. That is the only reason he will allow the method of studying the Bible that I have previously pointed out.
Answer to his question is "false." However, this is not an erroneous statement because of the fact that all of what Paul says has to be taken into consideration. Let me destroy his assertion in one easy whack.
[In] Verse 14 Paul says: [sic] "I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius...". Then in verse 15 he says: "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." Now if all one reads is those two verses and tries to make them stand on their one merit, then such a method would make Paul guilty of saying that he had baptized no one at Corinth but Crispus and Gaius. However, verse 16 says: "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." Now, if one makes that verse stand on its own merit then one has Paul correcting himself. This is Mr. Till's argument in a nut-shell [sic].
The solution is that Paul did not baptize the household of Stephanas at Corinth. Stephanas and his household were baptized in Athens while Paul was there giving his sermon on Mar's Hill. 1 Corinthians 15:16 calls the household of Stephanas "the first-fruits of Achaia." When Paul went through this part, he passed through Athens before he went to Corinth. In Athens he preached and many people believed. [sic] (Acts 17:34) [sic] Since the household of Stephanas was the first-fruits of Achaia, and since Paul's first stop in Achaia was in Athens, it is logical to assume that the household of Stephanas was baptized by Paul in Athens. Why were they there? They could have been living there, or they could have been visiting. That part makes no difference. The point is that all the evidence indicates that they were baptized in Athens while Paul was going through on his way to Corinth. Then Acts 18:1 tells about Paul coming to Corinth when Crispus and others were baptized. [sic] (Acts 18:8) [sic]
Now Paul probably meant that he had baptized Crispus and Gaius at Corinth and those were the only two at Corinth that he had personally baptized. The others at Corinth were more than likely baptized by Crispus and Gaius, and maybe Stephanaus [sic]. However, he also baptized Stephanaus' [sic] household, but not at Corinth so he puts them into a different category. Error? Where?
[Editor's Note: To say that the household of Stephanas was baptized in Athens is an assumption that cannot be supported by textual evidence, because none of the passages that McDonald cited even mentioned Stephanas, much less his entire household. Furthermore, Paul addressed 1 Corinthians to "the church of God, which is at Corinth" (1:1-2), so when Paul said that he thanked God that he had baptized "none of you except Crispus and Gaius," he was simply saying that he was thankful that he had baptized none of the members of the Corinthian church except Crispus and Gaius. When he later added that he had baptized also the household of Stephanas, he was including them as members of the Corinthian church whom he had baptized. Therefore, whether Stephanas was baptized in Athens or Corinth or wherever makes no difference, because Paul was not saying that he was thankful that he had not baptized in Corinth any of the church members there but Crispus and Gaius (and also the household of Stephanus); he was saying that he was thankful that he had not baptized any of the members of the church of God at Corinth except for those specified.]
Also this is an expression of writing that even Mr. Till uses. In his fourth rebuttal Mr. Till says: "Such muddle thinking as this almost defies--no, scratch the almost. It doesn't almost defy; it does defy comprehension." [sic] (p.5) Now at first sight it looks as if Farrell as made a mistake here and is simply retracting the statement. However, when one takes into account the fact that he used a computer to write this statement and he could have easily pressed the "backspace" key and blotted it out forever, and without anyone ever knowing of the mistake, one cannot say that Farrell made a mistake here. He did it purposely. He did it for emphasis.
Paul was not so far along in this letter that had he realized he had made a mistake, that [sic] he could not have just started over. Had this been the case, I would think that Paul would just begin all over, or maybe he could have just scratched through that part and stated it right, that way there would be no problem. No, Paul had a reason for doing it. He was emphasizing that he had baptized Crispus and Gaius at Corinth while he baptized the household of Stephanaus at Athens. There is no mistake or error here any more than Mr. Till has made an error in his writings. The two will either stand together or they will fall together.
His syllogism (p.18) is false because he has not proven the minor (disjunctive) premise to be true. He has not proven that 1 Cor. 1:14 and 1 Cor. 1:16 are not true and accurate in all details. I have proven that they are accurate and true in all details. He goes into an exposition that Gleason Archer gave to Dr. Countess which does not mean that Paul made any mistake. I agree with Dr. DeHoff, [sic] the Bible writers made no mistakes. Everything that is in the Bible is there by the will of the Holy Spirit. Mr. Till thinks that because there are differences that there are mistakes. Remember the example I used about the book written about church of Christ preachers of the 20th century; one writer said I was 27 when I began to preach while another said I was 29 with both being right and no mistake being made? [sic] I guess Till would call that a mistake! I am not bound by the International Council on Bible Inerrancy's definitions or rules. I do not believe there are any mistakes in the Bible, but I am not bound by their rules.
Paul wrote exactly what God wanted him to write, [sic] there were no mistakes in 1 Cor. 1:14-16. The only mistake is in the mind of one who has already made up his mind that the Bible is not inspired, and now he must find a premise to fit the conclusion. No Bible writer had any lapse of memory. They were protected from such. Did Mr. Till have a lapse of memory in his fourth rebuttal, page 5?
[Editor's Note: McDonald filled his manuscripts with unsupported assertions like those in the paragraph above and then complained because Till did not "respond" to all of them, as if it would be at all possible to reply to literally hundreds of unsupported assertions that can be found in McDonald's part of this debate. Unsupported assertions are fallacies of argumentation by assertion and therefore require no replies.]
If Mr. Till thinks that my defense of 1 Cor. 1:14-16 is going to be that Paul corrected the mistake, he does not know me or my position. To say that Paul corrected the mistake is to say that there was a mistake to correct, and there was none.
Now we come to Paul's visit to Jerusalem. I stand on my position that Luke did not say that the apostles had not heard, but that they had not believed what they had heard. That is exactly what Luke wrote in Acts 9:26: "..., [sic] but they were afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple." Now Mr. Till says that this clearly implies that they had not heard. Let me ask a simple question: "If they had not already heard that Saul was a disciple, why would they not believe that he was a disciple?" Where would they ever have gotten the idea of the possibility of him being a disciple? The scripture says that they did not believe that he was a disciple. If they had not heard that he was a disciple there would have been no concern about whether or not he had been truly converted. Can't you just imagine this conversation: "James: 'I don't believe that Saul of Tarsus is a disciple.' Thomas: 'Me either, I just don't believe that Saul is a disciple.' Barnabas: 'Who said anything about Saul of Tarsus being a disciple in the first place?' James and Thomas at the same time: 'Oh.'" Till's whole argument, here, is moot. Of course they had heard, [sic] otherwise there would have been no concern as to whether or not he was a disciple. There would have been no reason for them not to believe, if they had not heard such a thing. Why else do you think that Barnabas went to Saul in the first place? Simply to see if he really had converted. Barnabas goes to Saul, decides that he is really converted, and brings him to the rest of the apostles and told them the details of Saul's conversion.
Another thing to take into consideration is the fact that Till is trying to argue this point from both sides. In his debate with Bill Jackson Mr. Till argued that Acts 9:26 showed that the disciples had heard of Paul's conversion:
"Well, if he will read the Bible more carefully, he'll find the answer. 'And when he (Paul) was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple' (Acts 9:26). This verse says that the disciples were all afraid of Paul. Is Mr. Jackson going to dispute his own inerrant Bible?
He wants us to believe that three years had passed and somehow news of the great persecutor's conversion had not yet traveled from Damascus to Jerusalem, a distance of only some 200 miles." [sic] (The Jackson-Till Debate, p. 48) [sic]
Now in this debate he says: [sic] "By this, I assume that McDonald is arguing that the apostles and Christians in Jerusalem had heard of Paul's conversion but just didn't believe what they were hearing. He wanted to know where my proof was that they had not heard. Well, the proof is clearly there by implication." [sic] (p.21) [sic]
In one debate he says that they had heard while in the other debate he says they had not heard. What is that if it is not self-contradiction? [Editor's Note: McDonald's comments frequently indicated that he had reading comprehension problems, and his understanding of these two quotations is a good example of his problem. In both quotations, Till was obviously saying that it was absurd to argue that three years had not been long enough for news of Paul's conversion to reach the Christians in Jerusalem.] Well, maybe he saw it from Bill's viewpoint and has changed positions on it. This of course would mean that Farrell would have to admit that he thinks Bill was right on that point. If he disagrees with Bill, he has to agree with me. If he disagrees with me, he has to agree with Bill. Either way he is admitting defeat on this point in one of the two debates. Take your choice. The only reason he would stand on both sides of this issue is because he is determined to argue that the Bible is not inspired by God, and it matters not how many times he contradicts himself. But what can you expect from a man who brags about his position leaving margin for error? You talk about being caught on the horns of the dilemma!
Next he brings up Gal. 1:22-24 where Paul states that he was personally unknown to the churches of Judea, and then makes Jerusalem part of Judea in that verse. You mean to tell me that Saul was personally unknown to the Christians of Jerusalem? He stood and gave endorsement to Steven's death (Acts 7:58). He persecuted the church in Jerusalem and scattered it abroad. (Acts 8:1) He obtained letters from the High Priest at Jerusalem. (Acts 9:1) And now you want us to believe that he was unknown personally at Jerusalem? That is as absurd as anything you have ever said. Of course the church in Jerusalem knew who Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was.
He wants to know why the Jerusalem Christians had not heard of Paul's conversion in the three year time span. They had, they just did not believe it. He has already stated that the "gapped-itenerary" idea is acceptable, so I will not go into it any further. There are times when the word "Judea" is used without including Jerusalem. Example: "Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell in Jerusalem." [sic] (Acts 2:14) [sic] "...and they were scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles." [sic] (Acts 8:1) [sic] In both of those passages, Jerusalem is not included. I contend that Jerusalem is not included in Gal. 1:22-24.
Next he runs to Galatians 1:19 where Paul stated that he saw none of the apostles but Peter and James while Acts 9:26 seems to indicate that Barnabas took him to see all the apostles. He surmises that I might say that if Barnabas took Paul to see Peter and James that it could correctly be said that he saw "the apostles." I guess I could say that, and Till's idea that the phrase "the apostles" unless it was restricted as in Acts 14:14 must refer to the whole, is false. If the Senate meets without all the members of the Senate being there, could they not be called "the Senate"? If the House of Representatives meet without all of the members of the House present, could it not be called "the House of Representatives"? If so, then why could the phrase "the apostles" not refer to some without all of them being present? However, let me throw out another possibility which Mr. Till might want to chew on for a while.
Is it not possible that Paul, in Gal. 1:19, refers to those that he saw in the fifteen days that he stayed with Peter, which was [sic] Peter and James, while Luke recorded the event of when all of them met with Paul. In other words, it is possible that Paul (Saul of Tarsus) met with Peter and James first and abode with Peter for fifteen days and then met with the others afterwards. Would Paul be obligated to tell about the whole visit? Would Luke be obligated to tell about the whole visit? If not, then I submit that Mr. Till will have a problem showing that these two statements are contradictions or even inconsistencies which prove that God could not have authored the Bible. Which one of these statements is false. If Mr. Till is going to argue that there is a mistake here, he must show that at least one of them is false, and he cannot do that. James, to be called an apostle, did not have to be one of those chosen by Jesus himself. Barnabas (Acts 14:14) was called an apostle and I contend that this is the same way that James was called an apostle.
We do not admit that there are confusing situations in the Bible. The reason we call them "alleged" or "apparent" is because atheists like Till bring these things up which they cannot prove are contradictions, etc. Thus we call them "alleged" because atheists allege that they are there. He says that he is still waiting for me to deal with his statement on why God could not have written the Bible without it being so confusing. I have answered this several times. See pages 13,14 of my final defense and pages 13,14 of my second rebuttal. I have already answered the question on repetition, [sic] see pages 27 and 28 of my second rebuttal. Mark wrote to one group, Matthew wrote to another, Luke wrote to another, and John wrote, yet, to another group. There were reasons for the different accounts, not because there was any goof up, but because there were different people being written to.
[Editor's Note: Till pointed out here that some repetitions in the Bible, such as 2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37, repeat chapter-long sections word for word. McDonald's different-accounts-for-different-people "explanation" does not explain why writing the same information for "different people" would require word-for-word repetitions as in the two examples just cited, which are just some of the word-for-word repetitions in the Bible.]
The fallacy of the heap. If the Holy Spirit let one mistake slip by for a minute, could he do it for an hour, a year, etc. Yes, but the Holy Spirit cannot let even one error slip by and he did not let one slip by.
How does the mere existence of different accounts prove that God was not the author? Mr. Till assumes that these accounts are faulty, but they are not. He cannot prove that there is one mistake in any part of the Bible. He has not successfully been able to show where any account of anything was wrong. In order to prove his point he must show where at least one account is wrong, and he cannot do that, has not done it and never will do it.
Next we come to the questions and Till gives me a warning not to say I am going to assume anything or he won't answer, as though that is going to stop me from making the statement. If Mr. Till was [sic] to give a test and dictate how the questions were to be answered, what do you suppose his reaction would be to one of his students writing, after not answering the way that was dictated, "I am going to answer the questions however I want to answer them, [sic] it is none of your business."? [sic] I think he would flunk the student if he did not answer the way that Till dictated. Why is this any different?
[Editor's Note: McDonald's statement above is an example of the fallacy of false analogy. No competent teacher would give a true or false test with the warning that if students did not answer some of the questions, he would assume that their answers were true. That would give the students a fifty-fifty chance of being right when no questions were answered because in true or false tests, the answers are either true or false. If, for example a question read, "George Washington was the first president of the United States," assuming an answer of true for students who didn't answer this question would reward them with a correct answer even though they didn't answer it. That isn't at all parallel to McDonald's questions, which were purposefully worded to trap Till into giving the answers that McDonald wanted.]
Questions:
Responses to Questions Answered By Till:
[Editor's Note: As usual, McDonald did not repeat the questions Till answered, so the questions and Till's answers are requoted in italic print before McDonald's responses to them.]
One: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer we will assume that your answer is true.) "Absolute truth is impossible to obtain."
Answer: The answer depends upon what category of truth he means. Although some would disagree, I believe that absolute truth can be achieved in some areas but not others. In a base-ten math, for example, one could argue that it is possible absolutely to know that 2 + 2 will equal four, but to determine absolute truth in some matters of science, philosophy, and morality appears impossible. For example, a woman in this country recently gave birth to twins who were genetically her grandchildren. Ova from her daughter's ovaries were surgically removed, fertilized in a laboratory by sperm from the daughter's husband, and then transplanted into the grandmother's womb. Was this morally right? I challenge McDonald to tell us what absolute moral truth is in this matter and to explain how he arrived at that truth. Maybe he can quote us a book, chapter, and verse that would resolve the matter.
He says that the answer to my question is determined by what truth one is discussing. Any truth, Mr. Till. Is absolute truth impossible to obtain. If I can see that 2 + 2 = 4 why is it that I cannot see, by the evidence, that God exists and that the Bible is his word. What would be wrong with the situation he poses, since no fornication was involved.
Two: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer, blah, blah, blah.) "Ethics is autonomous and situational."
Answer: True. Even McDonald must agree to my answer, because he believes that killing babies is normally immoral, yet he argued in our oral debate that a "special situation" justified God's ordering the massacre of the Amalekite children.
He says that ethics is autonomous and situational. Then why does he complain about what God did to the Amalekites. If ethics is autonomous and situational then God was to be the one to determine what situation dictated the action and what did not, not Mr. Till. I do not believe in situational ethics. God, as the divine creator of the universe, has the right to take life whenever he sees fit. Mr. Till is not on the same level of existence (being) as God is, [sic] therefore [sic] Mr. Till cannot do all that God can do.
[Editor's Note: While claiming not to believe in "situational ethics," McDonald argues that the "situation" justified God's ordering the killing of the Amalekites.]
Three: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer....) "I have proven that the Bible is not inerrant. Therefore, I am absolutely sure that it is not the verbally inspired word of God. It can't be."
Answer: I made this statement in my debate with Bill Jackson, and I will not retract it. It was a true statement in the sense of the customary way that people use language, an area that McDonald obviously has no expertise in. He will want to make an issue over the expression "absolutely sure" as I used it. Probably he will trot to the dictionary to make a big point over what absolutely means. If, however, I handed a test back to my students with the comment, "The results of this test were an absolute disaster," would anyone, except McDonald possibly, understand me to mean that it would be impossible for any students ever to perform more disastrously? Certainly not! McDonald likes legalism until it backfires in his face as it has on several occasions in this debate. He is an absolute joke!
Mr. Till hedges around this question by saying that it is determined by what one means by "absolute." Why is it, [sic] that when I use the word "absolute" Mr. Till gets all up set [sic] and says that there are no absolutes, but he can use the same word, and such is alright [sic]. Simply because there is a double standard, he can do it, but I cannot.
[Editor's Note: The meanings of words are determined by the way that they are used. In this debate, McDonald has used the word absolute in its philosophical sense of not being limited by restrictions or exceptions or, in other words, objective perfection.]
Four: Whose moral code was God guilty of violating when he had Saul utterly destroy the Amalekites?
Answer: First, I want to know what he is going to assume if I don't answer that question. I am not one to evade issues, however, so I will answer it. If morality is objective, as he claims it is, then morality is something that is self-existing. It exists independently of mind. (If he doubts this, then let him check his dictionaries.) Objective morality, then, would be a morality that exists simply because it exists. If morality is absolute, as McDonald claims it is, then whatever is immoral is always, without exception, immoral. So if objective morality exists, then, assuming that the event happened as recorded, God was guilty of violating the objective moral code when he had Saul massacre the Amalekites, because if morality is objective and absolute, then even God himself would have to be subject to it. If he isn't, then there is no such thing as objective morality. On the other hand, if objective morality does not exist, then God simply violated the nonobjective moral code that tells every reasonable thinking person (which excludes Bible fundamentalists) that killing babies is wrong.
If God was guilty of violating this so-called "non-objective" [sic] moral code, that tells all rational thinking humans that killing babies is wrong, then all men are guilty when they kill babies. Yet Mr. Till thinks killing babies is perfectly acceptable, except when God did it or ordered it. Man can, but God cannot. God would be much better off as a human, wouldn't he [sic] Mr. Till? That way, God could kill babies and it would be perfectly acceptable. However, as the divine creator of the universe, he cannot do that. If it is morally wrong for God, it is morally wrong for man. But Mr. Till doesn't see a thing in the world wrong with humans killing babies in some situations, but there never is a reason for God to do it. Abortion is a woman's choice according to Till, kill a baby because it has a disease that is going to kill others, according to Till as long as you don't have God's authorization. If you have God's authorization, forget it, [sic] in Till's eyes you are wrong.
Five: Is the following statement true or false? (If you do not answer....) "Since there is no objective moral code, one person's moral code is just as good as another and everyone is to set his own standard for what is moral and what is not."
Answer: False. How could the moral code of an idiot or an insane person be "just as good" as the moral code of a competently intelligence person? How could the moral code of a child be "just as good" as the moral code of a mature person experienced in the social interactions of life?
If there is no objective moral code, why wouldn't the moral code of one person be just as good as another. It seems to me that he is sitting on the verge of objective morality, and just doesn't want to cross over. What is there, if there is no objective moral standard, that says that one moral code is any better than any other moral code. If objective morality does not exist, then subjective morality exists. If subjective morality exists then everyone should do as is right in their [sic] own eyes. He wants to hold to the idea that no one can disagree with him, but he has no basis for such a contention. What he might call a moral wrong, someone else might call justice. He says a woman should have the right to abort (kill) her baby if she chooses, for whatever reasons. However, if I get upset about such he says that situation ethics is applicable. Everyone should do as is right in their [sic] own eyes; that is everyone but God.
[Editor's Note: As pointed out above Till opposed abortion at the time of this debate. When McDonald learned this, he apologized in his third affirmative for having wrongly accused Till in the matter. Afterwards, however, he again defended the massacre of Amalekite babies on the grounds that this was no worse than Till's defense of abortion.
Till has since changed his position on abortion because of scientific information that he was unaware of at the time of this debate. While McDonald was a member of the Errancy forum, he made derogatory comments about members who believed in abortion, so Till challenged him to reply to "God Is Pro-Life?" and "Abortion and the God of the Bible." In particular, McDonald was challenged to reply to "Does a Person Exist at the Moment of Conception," which presented scientific information about "twinning" and embryonic amalgamations, which are verifiable scientific realities that are inconsistent with the religious claim that a person with a soul exists at the moment of conception. McDonald never responded to these challenges, even though they were posted several times.]
Now for his further affirmative argument. The argument can be answered this way. He wants to know how God could be good and punish Adam and Eve for something they did not know was wrong. Simply this, he told them that it was wrong (Gen. 2:17). My son does not know right from wrong in the sense of his being able to determine what is right and what is wrong. However, if I tell him not to do something, and he does it anyway, I have a right to punish him for disobeying me. God punished Adam and Eve for disobedience. It was through that disobedience that they learned right from wrong, or were able to start making decisions about what was right and what was wrong. Up until that time they were like children. However, God told them that if they ate of the tree that [sic] they would die. They ate, because Eve believed the serpent, and they died spiritually that day, and began dying physically. What is so hard to understand about that? They were guilty of disobeying God, and by that action they allowed sin into their lives.
Negative Arguments:
In Mr. Till's final rebuttal he produced some material that I want to deal with. He spent 6 pages on the so-called variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic versions of the book of Jeremiah. He brought up two points: [1] The original edition of Jeremiah's text was destroyed by Jehoiakim, and [2] Baruch published a more comprehensive edition of his master's sermons and arranged them into a more logical order.
He wanted to know about this later edition which preceded the final form of the text as we have it in the Masoretic text. He said: "I thought the Masoretic text was a duplicate of the original or at least a copy so close to the original that variations become inconsequential!" Remember now, Mr. Till is the one who says that it was a duplicate of the original, [sic] no Christian, to my knowledge, has ever made this statement. [Editor's Note: McDonald doesn't think that the Masoretic text, which has been the basis of English translations, was "so close to the original [text] that variations become inconsequential"?] Simply because a thing is a copy of a copy this does not mean that it will have more variations than the copy of the original had. It was an edition that had few variations in it.
It is now Mr. Till's turn to bring forth another affirmative. Let us hope that he does a better job than he has done in the past. I want to thank the reader for your attention and I ask you to be as carefully attentive to Mr. Till as you have been to me.
